Quite a lot of theists ask this question to atheists:
“Where do you get your morals from?”

Why stop there? Why not ask:
Where do you get your hunger from?
Do you love your kids (if you have kids)? Where do you get that feeling from?
Do you like comedy? Do you like to laugh? How do you decide what is funny? Who tells you what is funny?
How do you decide which cloths feels comfortable?
How do you decide your sexuality?

Do theists realize that there is a reason why animals feel hunger?
Do theists realize that there is a reason why animals feel love or affection or something for their offspring?

Do you really need someone to tell you which cloths to wear?
Do you really need someone to tell you what is moral?

Even if there is a god or gods, do you really need them to tell you what to do? Can’t you figure it out for yourselves?

So when a theist asks, where do you get your morals from, what are you trying to tell me? Are you telling me that you are going to run around kill, rape and steal if you are not told by your god that such things are illegal?

I remember watching a video from a muslim. He was having a conversation with an atheist.
He asks him, If there is no god, then why don’t you drink your father’s sperm.
The muslim was thinking that that is a moral issue and for some reason he thinks his god commands him not to drink sperm and he thought it was a good idea to ask this to an atheist.

~~~~iceman9090

What do morals have to do with God? Mores are the consensus beliefs of a society. If your society is a cannibal tribe in Borneo, killing and eating your enemies is the moral thing to do. Mormon morals pretty much revolve around slut shaming.

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What do morals have to do with God? Mores are the...


I agree. Morals has always been created by society. If there was a god or 2 that cared about human affairs and gives out rules printed on papyrus or goat skins to jews, then he should be able to do that with every culture.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/1467880/nine-places-across-the-world-where-cannibalism-is-still-alive-and-well/
“Papua New Guinea
In Western New Guinea along the Ndeiram Kabur River lives a tribe called The Korowai. The tribesmen believe that a witch man kills off members of the group and it is their duty to consume the dead man’s carcass in order to take revenge for the death.“

~~~~iceman9090

Exactly. Nice flip.

What I liked about your post is the focus shift away from morals to real life and animals and love and hunger. Focus on reciprocity which is the time everybody wins and we can take this "moral" word out of the dictionary for good.

The over the top focus on morals is just an excuse to judge, to deem oneself superior while holding someone else to a standard that they never signed up for and is most likely already beneath them.

Bingo. Every day I grow more and more secure in my decision to reject religion entirely if it has systems in place to tell me how I should live or behave. It's to induce shame and fear in order to control people. If I am going to sign up for that kind of system, I might as well get a vote on what the rules actually are.

I think that morals derive from the fact that we are pro-social animals. We evolved to live in groups and to cooperate with one another in order to improve our chances of survival. Our morals are based on social cooperation which is wired into us.

A researcher was working with a group of gorillas in Africa. She did not interfere with their day to day life, but simply observed them. One of the members of the gorilla troop had what we would call sociopathic behavior. The female gorilla was needlessly destructive and violent. The situation got so bad that some other gorillas eventually went to the researcher for help.

Even gorillas can recognize a moral outlier.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even gorillas can recognize a moral outlier.

Even if it is Disney moralizing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-uIQDRS4a8

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> summer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Even gorillas can recognize a moral outlier.
>
> Even if it is Disney moralizing.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-uIQDRS4a8


There was a lot of loud music in that commercial.
They do a pause at 0:41 for 2 seconds
They do a pause at 0:56 for 2 seconds
They do a pause at 1:06 for 4 seconds
They do a pause at 1:32 for 2 seconds

~~~~iceman9090

iceman9090 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Quite a lot of theists ask this question to
> atheists:
> “Where do you get your morals from?”

Before you are dismissive of the question, you have to understand the scope of what is being asked; including what is being assumed by the question. The first thing that is assumed is that people have a moral sense; i.e. a sense of right and wrong. The second assumption is that there is a "you" i.e. a moral self, or a conscious moral center that is related to this moral sense. The third assumption is that this "you" is a moral agent who can act and make judgments based upon their moral sense; i.e. that they have free will to decide what is moral and to act or not act according to that decision. In short, the question assumes that people can know right from wrong, and can freely choose to act according to their moral sense.

So, given all of that, the question becomes how does an atheist formulate a theory such that their moral sense captures what is objectively right and wrong, and allows them to act accordingly.
>
> Why stop there? Why not ask:
> Where do you get your hunger from?
> Do you love your kids (if you have kids)? Where do
> you get that feeling from?
> Do you like comedy? Do you like to laugh? How do
> you decide what is funny? Who tells you what is
> funny?
> How do you decide which cloths feels comfortable?
> How do you decide your sexuality?

These are good questions too, but clearly are NOT the same sort of question. These questions have no moral implications.

> Do theists realize that there is a reason why
> animals feel hunger?
> Do theists realize that there is a reason why
> animals feel love or affection or something for
> their offspring?

Theists no doubt realize all of these animal and human characteristics, and realize that there are reasons (explanations) as to how such things arise. But, again, none of this relates in any way to the original question, which was about morality; the sense of right and wrong, and the implication of free will that morality carries with it.
>
> Do you really need someone to tell you which
> cloths to wear?
> Do you really need someone to tell you what is
> moral?

Well, clothes to wear is one thing, morality is something else. For a theist it is not just a matter of someone (God) telling them what to do and what not to do, and then going out and doing it or not doing it. It is a matter of following moral law. Just as God (supposedly) determined the laws of physics SHE also (supposedly) determined the moral law as well. Being moral is therefore not following orders, but being in tune with and following moral laws that theist believe came from God.
>
> Even if there is a god or gods, do you really need
> them to tell you what to do? Can’t you figure it
> out for yourselves?

Theist answer, No, and Yes. But the question is can an atheist do the same; and if so, by what moral theory? That is why they ask the question. In other words, where does morality fit into the laws of nature such as to provide both *information* about the moral law (what to do and what not to do), and the moral authority that establishes what people morally *ought* to do.
>
> So when a theist asks, where do you get your
> morals from, what are you trying to tell me? Are
> you telling me that you are going to run around
> kill, rape and steal if you are not told by your
> god that such things are illegal?

Of course not. What they are asking you, again, is by what theory do you explain your personal moral commitments; both the source of such commitments, and the authority of such source as to be able to prescribe or dictate what a person "ought" to do.
>
> I remember watching a video from a muslim. He was
> having a conversation with an atheist.
> He asks him, If there is no god, then why don’t
> you drink your father’s sperm.
> The muslim was thinking that that is a moral issue
> and for some reason he thinks his god commands him
> not to drink sperm and he thought it was a good
> idea to ask this to an atheist.

There is a huge difference between mechanically following the dictates of some scriptural mandate, politician, or "prophet," on the one hand, and behaving in accordance with your moral sense as a reflection of moral law, on the other hand. In some cases one's moral sense coincides with religious dictates; but that is not necessarily so.

G. Salviati Wrote:
+G. Salviati:
“These are good questions too, but clearly are NOT the same sort of question. These questions have no moral implications.”

==That’s correct. I am not trying to duplicate the original question in another form.
I am trying to demontsrate that both originate in the brain and have a similar foundation, which is emotion.

“Where do you get your hunger from?”
Vs
“How do you decide what is moral?”

“So, given all of that, the question becomes how does an atheist formulate a theory such that their moral sense captures what is objectively right and wrong, and allows them to act accordingly.”

==Atheists are suppose to operate as human beings just like theists are suppose to operate as human beings. By human beings, I mean the typical human that has emotions and has some intellect and not someone in a comma.

The first thing to do, is to define what morality means because from what I have seen, it means different things to different people.

For me, morality means not doing intentional harm to others. To sit down at the table of civilization and have respectful conversations as to what the rules for our society should be.

I don’t know what you mean by objectively right and wrong.

“Theists no doubt realize all of these animal and human characteristics, and realize that there are reasons (explanations) as to how such things arise. But, again, none of this relates in any way to the original question, which was about morality; the sense of right and wrong, and the implication of free will that morality carries with it.”

==I don’t know what you mean by free will.
I disagree. These questions do relate to the question of morality.
What makes you think that hunger is totally different than your morality?

My ability to determine what causes harm to another person is not ad hoc. My ability to determine that hitting a person on the head with a rock is going to hurt each and every time is based on experience and logic (determinism).
I also recognize that once in a while I am going to feel hungry and that I need to eat. It is a basic need that I have. That need is initiated by an emotion: hunger, desire for tasty sensations.
Not eating food would make me feel bad just like hitting someone on the head with a rock for no reason would also make me feel bad.

“Theists no doubt realize all of these animal and human characteristics, and realize that there are reasons (explanations) as to how such things arise.”

==Not from what I have seen. Quite a few christians draw a line between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom.

“Well, clothes to wear is one thing, morality is something else. For a theist it is not just a matter of someone (God) telling them what to do and what not to do, and then going out and doing it or not doing it. It is a matter of following moral law. Just as God (supposedly) determined the laws of physics SHE also (supposedly) determined the moral law as well. Being moral is therefore not following orders, but being in tune with and following moral laws that theist believe came from God.”

==The god determines the laws of physics? Can this god also determine how mathematics works?
Can he make so that 1+1 = 5?
Can this god make it so that when you put 2 apples in a basket, you get 5?

Do you understand what I am talking about?

Also, who created the laws that govern how his own body works?

“Being moral is therefore not following orders, but being in tune with and following moral laws that theist believe came from God.”

==You aren’t telling me why you are moral.
Go ahead.

“Theist answer, No, and Yes.

==LOL. Which is it? No or yes.
How about you take a shot at the question for yourself and we’ll have a real conversation here.


“But the question is can an atheist do the same; and if so, by what moral theory?”

==I already did it in the other thread.

“and the moral authority that establishes what people morally *ought* to do.”

==There is no signular authority figure. Morality is determined by society and there are many societies that exist and so there will be difference in moral code and some cross over as well.

“There is a huge difference between mechanically following the dictates of some scriptural mandate, politician, or "prophet," on the one hand, and behaving in accordance with your moral sense as a reflection of moral law, on the other hand. In some cases one's moral sense coincides with religious dictates; but that is not necessarily so.”

==I agree but I don’t see what it has to do with my comment.
Why would this muslim person ask an atheist “Would you drink your father’s sperm?”

~~~~iceman9090

Theists just need to come up with an appropriate scripture or revelation and their activities are made holy.

My favorite was the medieval holy roman practice of taking captured 'heretical' soldiers and baptizing them by throwing them into lakes and rivers tied up and in full armor.

Thou shalt spread the faith and baptize conveniently trumped "thou shalt not kill".

They absolutely do. Without the word of God to clarify matters, how would theists know that genocide is a good thing?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They absolutely do. Without the word of God to
> clarify matters, how would theists know that
> genocide is a good thing?

And why is the moral code of the jew or christian or muslim given to them in a book as opposed to an alternate solution?
Why does the jewish god favor books? Is he a bookworm?

~~~~iceman9090

No more than Confucians, Taoists, Buddhists, Legalists, Hindus, Zoroastrians, many of the old Mystery Cults, and other religions as well.

So what's your point?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No more than Confucians, Taoists, Buddhists,
> Legalists, Hindus, Zoroastrians, many of the old
> Mystery Cults, and other religions as well.
>
> So what's your point?

Why is the moral code by the gods given to 1 person rather than to everyone in parralel?

What if that 1 person is delusional and only thinks he is talking to a god. The he convinces others that he is talking to a god. Then, his followers eventually write down the leaders life story.

How am I suppose to tell the difference between a religion created by a delusional charismatic leader and one where the gods talk to 1 person and ask him to write things down in a book.

Both cases look the same to me. I can't tell the difference.

~~~~iceman9090

> How am I suppose to tell the difference between a
> religion created by a delusional charismatic
> leader and one where the gods talk to 1 person and
> ask him to write things down in a book.
>
> Both cases look the same to me. I can't tell the
> difference.

Exactly.

A lot of them seem to believe they wouldn't have a clue what's moral if their chosen religion didn't tell them. And even then they sometimes have a hard time figuring it out.

olderelder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
They had a lot of difficulty in figuring out whether people with black skin color had Ham’s curse or whether they should have slaves.
I don’t know how many times I have been told that I have no business in criticizing their religion.
I don’t know how many times I have been told that I don’t understand the Bible and that they understand it perfectly.

Christians are funny people. So are the jews, muslims and the newcommers on this planet: the mormons.

~~~~iceman9090

Does Abraham need to be told to murder his son?

Consider:

First, if one wants to view religion in scientific terms, religion (Christianity) has a "theory" of morality. The theory is simply stated: (1) God created the moral law; (2) People have free will to make decisions in accordance with or contrary to that law; and (3) God commanded that people obey the moral law.

It is important to realize that the key to this 'theory' is not obedience per se in a vacuum. Just as God created physical laws that have force and effect, he (supposedly) created the moral law which has force and effect. The moral law is not a "do it because I said so mandate." It is obedience to principles that are supposedly inherent in God's creation. The moral law is therefore its own moral authority as to judgments of right and wrong, just as physical law is its own authority for cause and effect physical consequences.

Now, we can argue that this is not a very satisfying theory. For one thing, there is no evidence for either God's existence, or any moral law springing from him. Notwithstanding, it *does* provide an explanatory theoretical grounding or framework for moral judgments that in principle avoids moral relativity.

So, the question posed for atheists is this: If you reject God as the source of moral law, and you believe in moral law such that you acknowledge that some actions are objectively morally right and some objectively morally wrong, what is *your* theory of morality? What is *your* explanation as to its force and effect? And more particularly, what underlies the objectivity, the moral authority, and thus the legitimacy, of moral judgments--demanded and enforced either individually or as a society?

A stark example of this dilemma can be seen in the Eugenics movement in the late 19th and early 20th Century, culminating (for the most part) in the Nazi Eugenics policies in the 1930s and 40s. Quite correctly, it was claimed that if "fitness" was the ultimate scientific determination of the value of human life, then people that lacked fitness should be devalued as a matter of scientific logic. Moreover, social policy should reflect such facts in favor of immediate or eventual eradication of people that were genetically unfit. Although, the details of eugenic fitness were debatable, as a theory it was entirely scientific, based upon the accepted Darwinian natural selection, and "survival of the fittest." Moreover, a number of famous biologists including Neo-Darwinists R.A. Fisher and J.B.S. Haldane.

(See Kevles, D.J.(1998) In the Name of Eugenics; Muller-Hill, B. (1988) Murderous Science)

Of course, Eugenics was eventually rejected on moral grounds. But why? Not for scientific reasons, but because the value of human life was thought to transcend considerations of fitness; notwithstanding the obvious social benefits of the Eugenics program. That is how people felt (eventually) and feel now. They rejected a well-formed scientific theory in favor of moral feelings and intuitions; often invoking God as the source of such objections. But, again, if you remove God from the moral equation, what is the moral theory that validates one's objections to Eugenics? Of course, the modern form of this dilemma can be seen in arguments involving euthanasia, genetic engineering, etc. where science is proceeding in contexts were moral principles are murky and controversial.

In any event, this is the source of the question to atheists about the basis their morality after rejection of God, as posed by SC's in the other related thread (whether he realized it or not!) The force of this question does not equally apply to theists, for reasons noted.

G. Salviati Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I don’t know why you are talking about physical laws. Physical laws are different from moral laws. They are different in the following way.
For example:
A proton does not obey the law of “like charges repel each other.”
All protons have an electric field and it is the direction of the field that determines the interaction between 2 protons.

This is an intrinsic property of protons.

Humans observe nature and then come up with mathematics models and what they call laws to describe nature’s behavior.
These are called descriptive laws.

As for these morals laws
“created the moral law which has force and effect.”

==How did the jewish god create these laws?
What was the thought process behind it?

“The moral law is not a "do it because I said so mandate." It is obedience to principles that are supposedly inherent in God's creation. The moral law is therefore its own moral authority as to judgments of right and wrong, just as physical law is its own authority for cause and effect physical consequences.”

==For protons, it is an intrinsic law.
When you say god’s creation has inherited moral laws, I’m not sure what you mean. To me, they don’t seem inherent because societies can create different rules.

A physical law is not its own authority. Physical laws are just descriptive laws that human’s create to describe nature. Nature, such as protons, are brainless entities and they don’t obey any laws because they don’t have that ability.

A moral law is its own moral authority? I don’t know what you mean.
I thought a moral authority is a machine that has a brain, that has intelligence.

“Now, we can argue that this is not a very satisfying theory. For one thing, there is no evidence for either God's existence, or any moral law springing from him. Notwithstanding, it *does* provide an explanatory theoretical grounding or framework for moral judgments that in principle avoids moral relativity.”

==We don’t need to argue whether the jewish god exists. Let’s assume it does exist.
Moral relativity is not avoided because there are 7 billion humans right now, and maybe there have been ~100 billion in total, perhaps there are thousands of cultures.
Each person can generate there own moral code and there could be differences between them. Each person becomes an authority as to what is moral.

“So, the question posed for atheists is this: If you reject God as the source of moral law, and you believe in moral law such that you acknowledge that some actions are objectively morally right and some objectively morally wrong, what is *your* theory of morality?”

==I’m not sure what objectively moral means.
Perhaps, if you were to give me an example of objective morality vs non-objective morality, I would understand what thought better.

“A stark example of this dilemma can be seen in the Eugenics movement in the late 19th and early 20th Century”

==So, what you are saying is that natural selection in the form of the jewish god killing people is morally superior to artificial selection which is done by humans?

“In any event, this is the source of the question to atheists about the basis their morality after rejection of God”

==It is a good question but I would like to discuss in parallel the other side of the coin, which is the acceptance of the jewish god’s laws. Why are you accepting those laws as being moral?


~~~~iceman9090

iceman9090 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don’t know why you are talking about physical
> laws. Physical laws are different from moral laws.

I was talking from the perspective of theology. Moral laws dictate or establish moral behavior, and they are arguably somehow ingrained in the natural laws of the universe. Note also that physical laws do not and cannot accommodate consciousness and free will, both of which are necessary for morality by any measure. So if you want a "moral law" in any shape or form, you are going to have to transcend the physical. That is what theology does, or tries to do.

> They are different in the following way.
> For example:
> A proton does not obey the law of “like charges
> repel each other.”
> All protons have an electric field and it is the
> direction of the field that determines the
> interaction between 2 protons.

So what? No one is claiming that the laws of physics are identical to moral laws.

> Humans observe nature and then come up with
> mathematics models and what they call laws to
> describe nature’s behavior.
> These are called descriptive laws.

What human scientists observe, and how they extract physical laws and mathematical theories requires properties of humans and human cognition that are not themselves neatly encompassed by physical laws. So, you cannot ignore human consciousness, creativity, imagination, cognition, and free will, to jump straight to physical laws and then think you have described everything about the universe. Moral laws, arguably, fit into that aspect of the universe that encompasses human intelligence, free will, etc. that go beyond mere physical laws. And this is evident because of the failure of science to deal with these transcendent capacities in a meaningfully scientific way. Notwithstanding, such human capacities *are* subject to some universal laws (whatever they might be) that are presumably not strictly "physical."

> ==How did the jewish god create these laws?
> What was the thought process behind it?

Good question. You will have to ask a theologist. I have no idea; which is why I have to reject this theory.

> ==For protons, it is an intrinsic law.
> When you say god’s creation has inherited moral
> laws, I’m not sure what you mean. To me, they
> don’t seem inherent because societies can create
> different rules.

Not "inherited", but inherent! Arguably, they *seem* inherent because they are! Humans just get these inherent moral laws wrong sometimes.
>
> A physical law is not its own authority. Physical
> laws are just descriptive laws that human’s
> create to describe nature. Nature, such as
> protons, are brainless entities and they don’t
> obey any laws because they don’t have that
> ability.

The laws of physics, as identified by scientists, are indeed descriptive. However, they are descriptive of an order in the universe that is independent of science or scientists. Such order exists whether humans describe it or not. In other words, it is the order that underlies the laws of nature which human scientists then describe. They discover such order, they do not invent it.
>
> A moral law is its own moral authority? I don’t
> know what you mean.
> I thought a moral authority is a machine that has
> a brain, that has intelligence.

Moral authority is the underlying theory that allows you to logically and objectively claim what a person is morally bound to do. Moral intuitions alone cannot provide such authority because there is no logical grounding beyond the subjective feelings of individuals. To avoid relativism--i.e. an anything goes morality--you need some basis or grounding--just like physics is grounded in natural laws that have objective status in the inherent order of the universe. (Scientists do not make up natural laws; and similarly people cannot make up moral laws!)
>
> ==We don’t need to argue whether the jewish god
> exists. Let’s assume it does exist.
> Moral relativity is not avoided because there are
> 7 billion humans right now, and maybe there have
> been ~100 billion in total, perhaps there are
> thousands of cultures.
> Each person can generate there own moral code and
> there could be differences between them. Each
> person becomes an authority as to what is moral.

No. Under the theological moral theory (as I described it) the moral code is objective and people cannot generate their own moral code or laws from scratch in accordance with their own whims. Differences that exist between moral intuitions happen because of the complexity of contexts as well as the simple fact that humans sometimes get the moral mandate wrong. That does not mean that there is no underlying moral law that is part of God's creation. (Or, so the argument goes.)
>
> “So, the question posed for atheists is this: If
> you reject God as the source of moral law, and you
> believe in moral law such that you acknowledge
> that some actions are objectively morally right
> and some objectively morally wrong, what is *your*
> theory of morality?”
>
> ==I’m not sure what objectively moral means.
> Perhaps, if you were to give me an example of
> objective morality vs non-objective morality, I
> would understand what thought better.

Objectively moral means--as I said--that there is an underlying theory that establishes the moral law as part of the universal order, and along with it a duty of human beings to comply with it. As a "law" it must be generated from some reality of the universe that trumps anyone's personal, subjective desires. For example, "murder" is thus deemed objectively wrong by some universal principle and not because any person or group of people dictated this mandate for social convenience, or to describe most people's moral intuitions.
>
> ==So, what you are saying is that natural
> selection in the form of the jewish god killing
> people is morally superior to artificial selection
> which is done by humans?

Say what?
>
> “In any event, this is the source of the
> question to atheists about the basis their
> morality after rejection of God”
>
> ==It is a good question but I would like to
> discuss in parallel the other side of the coin,
> which is the acceptance of the jewish god’s
> laws. Why are you accepting those laws as being
> moral?

I am only talking theoretically here. I don't accept religion at all; and certainly not religious pronouncements of moral law. I am only pointing out the difficulty of grounding morality in some theory that establishes its objective character, including its moral authority, without invoking some notion of God.

Thank you for your thoughts.

G. Salviati Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
“Moral laws dictate or establish moral behavior, and they are arguably somehow ingrained in the natural laws of the universe.”

==How are they ingrained?
You are making a claim but I am not able to follow your thought process as to how you came to that conclusion. Please provide the logical steps, the pathway that you used.

“Note also that physical laws do not and cannot accommodate consciousness and free will, both of which are necessary for morality by any measure. So if you want a "moral law" in any shape or form, you are going to have to transcend the physical.”

==Why not?
I think that a CPU is made by designing a circuit. A circuit is made by using a large number of interconnected transistors. Of course, a specific CPU is made by a human for a certain purpose.
The brain itself is also a circuit. Its basic unit is the neuron.
AFAIK, the brain is made of molecules.
Are you suggesting another, foreign material is used to make a brain?

“So what? No one is claiming that the laws of physics are identical to moral laws.”

==You mentioned them, so I had to show the difference between a physical law and a moral law. In other words, there are no physical laws at all. What exists are properties that these things have, such as the proton and its properties.

“What human scientists observe, and how they extract physical laws and mathematical theories requires properties of humans and human cognition that are not themselves neatly encompassed by physical laws.”

==Physical laws, in other words, the explanations that you find in the textbook about Physics or textbook about chemistry describe only fundamental properties of matter.
You aren’t going to find in them a description about how the AMD Zen 1 architecture works.
The subject of physics has its own scope.
The subject of chemistry has its own scope.
The subject of CPU design has its own scope.
The subject of AI has its own scope.

It’s layers upon layers. AI is layered upon computer architecture and CPU architecture which is layered on chemistry and physics.
AI -> CPU -> chemistry/physics


"So, you cannot ignore human consciousness, creativity, imagination, cognition, and free will"

==I don't see any reason to ignore it either.
I don't know what you mean by free will.

"Moral laws, arguably, fit into that aspect of the universe that encompasses human intelligence, free will, etc."

==I don't know what you mean by free will.

"And this is evident because of the failure of science to deal with these transcendent capacities in a meaningfully scientific way. Notwithstanding, such human capacities *are* subject to some universal laws (whatever they might be) that are presumably not strictly "physical.""

==Failure? What do you mean. Are you claiming that scientists have failed and have given up? They left the lab and they are not coming back?

“Good question. You will have to ask a theologist. I have no idea; which is why I have to reject this theory.”

==I already know the answer. They don’t know.
My point is, when they come up with some explanation power, I will be far more interested in what they have to say.
For now, the scientific domain has my attention. They have changed the world in big ways.
I expect it to continue.
From the theology department, they are not doing anything to advance knowledge. They are stuck in the year 4000 BCE or thereabouts.

“Not "inherited", but inherent! Arguably, they *seem* inherent because they are! Humans just get these inherent moral laws wrong sometimes.”

==When you say inherent moral laws, what do you mean?
You said humans get these inherent moral laws wrong sometimes and right sometimes. What methodology to humans use to get them?
Is there perhaps a problem in their methodology?

“The laws of physics, as identified by scientists, are indeed descriptive. However, they are descriptive of an order in the universe that is independent of science or scientists. Such order exists whether humans describe it or not. In other words, it is the order that underlies the laws of nature which human scientists then describe. They discover such order, they do not invent it.”

==It was fine until you wrote “the order that underlies the laws of nature”.
There are no laws at all. There isn’t a piece of paper that says a proton should push against another proton because like charges repel.

The only thing that exists is property. The things in nature have property. In the case of the proton, the example that I gave was based on the electric field of these protons.

The ordering is just an emergent behavior. There is a very large number of these subatomic particles. They can come together and form new structures which have new properties.
For example, a large number of sodium and chlorine atoms can come together and form cubic crystals.

What are going to tell me next? That there are particles that don’t obey any laws? Is there a universe with no ordering at all?

“Moral authority is the underlying theory that allows you to logically and objectively claim what a person is morally bound to do.”

==How do you do it?

“No. Under the theological moral theory (as I described it) the moral code is objective and people cannot generate their own moral code or laws from scratch in accordance with their own whims. Differences that exist between moral intuitions happen because of the complexity of contexts as well as the simple fact that humans sometimes get the moral mandate wrong. That does not mean that there is no underlying moral law that is part of God's creation. (Or, so the argument goes.)”

==Like I asked in my previous sentence, How do you do it?
How does this moral theory function.
What methodology is used to determine which moral code is objective and which isn’t?

“people cannot generate their own moral code or laws from scratch in accordance with their own whims.”

==Why not?
I thought people were intelligent sentient beings. Are they not?

“the simple fact that humans sometimes get the moral mandate wrong.”

==What methodology do humans use and at what steps do they falter?

“Objectively moral means--as I said--that there is an underlying theory that establishes the moral law as part of the universal order, and along with it a duty of human beings to comply with it. As a "law" it must be generated from some reality of the universe that trumps anyone's personal, subjective desires. For example, "murder" is thus deemed objectively wrong by some universal principle and not because any person or group of people dictated this mandate for social convenience, or to describe most people's moral intuitions.”

==So, let me get this straight. You are claiming or you are expecting that there is some moral code in the creation of the jewish god. I’m not even sure where you think this moral code is located. Is it located in subatomic particles? In the fabric of space and time?
I’ll let you answer that one and then I’ll get back to this one.

>> ==So, what you are saying is that natural
>> selection in the form of the jewish god killing
>> people is morally superior to artificial selection
>> which is done by humans?
>
>Say what?

You mentioned Eugenics.
Isn’t Eugenics the idea to kill some people. People who are inferior?
Isn’t that artificial selection?


“I am only talking theoretically here. I don't accept religion at all; and certainly not religious pronouncements of moral law. I am only pointing out the difficulty of grounding morality in some theory that establishes its objective character, including its moral authority, without invoking some notion of God.”

==I’ll just post the definition that you gave as to what objective morality means:
“Objectively moral means--as I said--that there is an underlying theory that establishes the moral law as part of the universal order, and along with it a duty of human beings to comply with it. As a "law" it must be generated from some reality of the universe that trumps anyone's personal, subjective desires. For example, "murder" is thus deemed objectively wrong by some universal principle and not because any person or group of people dictated this mandate for social convenience, or to describe most people's moral intuitions.”

==Ok, so there is a universal order according to you and the moral law is part of that.
What if I were to tell you that I get my objective morality from that? That thing that you call “universal order”.

PRIME^^^^^PRIME^^^^^PRIME^^^^^PRIME^^^^^PRIME^^^^^PRIME^^^^^PRIME

Note: I am not saying that I agree with your definition or that I agree with my answer. I am just trying to solve the problem that you are having.
The line with PRIME is a marker in the text.

~~~~iceman9090

G. Salviati Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

Hello G. Salviati,
I am still interested in this conversation.

~~~~iceman9090

ICEMAN:

I stopped responding because it appeared to me that you either did not understand the points I was trying to make (perhaps my fault), or otherwise we were talking past each other. Also, in your last response there were way too many issues for me to try to address, some of which are philosophically and scientifically complex and controversial in their own right. If you are interested, you may want to start new threads on such issues that are more narrowly defined. If you are so inclined, I will try to participate.

Also, keep in mind that for the most part in this thread I was articulating the theist position with respect to the foundation of morality and moral laws, and not my own position. Moreover, I was trying to show that such a position arguably has a foundational advantage over theories or views of morality that have no foundation at all, and almost universally result in moral relativity of some sort.

G. Salviati Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I think I understand their point. It essentially boils down to a declaration that a certain person is the god and the authority figure. His morals are the only ones that count.

This conversation is a kid that you make. Perhaps it does not grow up to be exactly what you want but you can’t just turn your back on it.

“I was articulating the theist position”

==That’s alright.
I was under the impression that you did not have the heart to continued

~~~~iceman9090

G. Salviati Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

Hello G. Salviati,
I am still interested in this conversation.

+=+=+=+=+=+=POPPING THE THREAD+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

~~~~iceman9090

Threads such as this are somewhat puzzling to me. I find things such as the opening premise so far outside my own thinking, experience, and sense of myself that I wonder just who it is that is asking such questions in the first place. I guess I shall have to pay more attention to people around me.

Kentish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Threads such as this are somewhat puzzling to me.
> I find things such as the opening premise so far
> outside my own thinking, experience, and sense of
> myself that I wonder just who it is that is asking
> such questions in the first place. I guess I
> shall have to pay more attention to people around
> me.

It is a big planet with lots of people with various ideas.
I am interested in your view on this topic.

~~~~iceman9090

iceman9090 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Quite a lot of theists ask this question to
> atheists:
> “Where do you get your morals from?”

> what are you trying to tell me? Are
> you telling me that you are going to run around
> kill, rape and steal if you are not told by your
> god that such things are illegal?
>
> ~~~~iceman9090

I know ExMo's who are still Christians, who have asked me that question and my response to them is, well, I believe we had morals before we had religion. Every animal species has rules of behavior that they follow in order to not only survive, but thrive. We're just the first animals to evolve to the point where we could write those rules down and make them into laws we can all agree upon, legally, morally, ethically.
There are already laws that say don't rape or murder. So if you just forget religion and go by the laws, you'd get by fine in society, generally. But if you break the laws and go around raping and murdering people, we remove you from society.
Humans are the first ones who said, "Hey, I know how to gain power over these 'other' people, convince them I'm friends with a super human God and that they're guilty of sin, due to no fault of their own, and they need to pay God (and me as his middle man) in order to be forgiven. But they never catch up. They're always in debt to God, the church, which never gives them what they want, freedom from feeling guilty about being a sinner. It's a perfect money making device that's been working wonders ever since Constantine made Christianity the state religion.
So having rejected tribalism all together and the authoritarian white supremacy/patriarchy in particular, where does one get their morals and ethics?
Personally I look to wisdom literature, especially the philosophy of those who had morals and ethics without religion, like Epicurus and Aurelius, Plato and Socrates, Aristotle, Nietzsche and Jung. Jefferson, Franklin, Thoreau and Emerson, Walt Whitman and cosmologist geniuses, Einstein, Hawking, Sagan, Penrose and Kaku and humanists like Ellie Wiesel, the Dalai Lama, Jane Goodal, Ayan Hirsi Ali and Malala.
I also had great parents who instilled good morals, ethics and values in me, outside of religion.
I also am married to an atheist, who is waaaaaay more moral, ethical, honest, responsible, than my Mormon wife ever was.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

“We're just the first animals to evolve to the point where we could write those rules down and make them into laws we can all agree upon, legally, morally, ethically.”

==Yes, humans have gained the ability to make tools, the ability for abstract thought, ability to have a language and written language.

“There are already laws that say don't rape or murder.”

==Yes, getting raped and murdered would be unpleasant. The keyword here is emotion. The laws can be derived from emotions.
So a couple of humans (or more) can come together and agree upon rules to live by. It’s as simple as that.

“But if you break the laws and go around raping and murdering people, we remove you from society.”

==Exactly, all those guys who are fine with raping and murdering and steeling get kicked out from society. They can join together and call themselves pirates or whatever. They can rape and murder each other if they want and their society will break down into nothingness.

“Humans are the first ones who said, "Hey, I know how to gain power over these 'other' people”

==Much of history has been lost, so I can only give my opinion. I think it all started with animinism. The idea that the “forces” of nature are intelligent guys. Life was hard. People prayed to these forces to go easy on them, to provide them with food, no chase away their pains.
“Oh great god of planet earth, we give you the blood of this virgin woman so that you would give us plenty of corn! Do we have the deal? Do absolutely nothing if you agree.”

“Constantine made Christianity the state religion.”

==Actually, that was done a little after his death. He wasn’t fully christian. The first nation that adopted christianity as a state religion was the kingdom of Armenia.

~~~~iceman9090

Only so they can judge others for being immoral.

Morals come from society.